When you are dealing with the deliberately dishonest is it ever ok to show your displeasure?

Yes, it is :)But it might not help much, but it's ok. We're only human after all (or designed to be that way, take ur pick).

Kudos to Alan Fox on that regard, some of the discussions i've seen him have with Sal et al would have had me frothing at the mouth reaching for my book of insults. However, Alan just responds with the patience and calm of a buddist (the good ones anyway!), and becuase of it the vacuity of the people he is arguing with is even more apparent.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Sheesh. Behe just destroyed Levin. Behe is polite but in my opinion, nobody does a better job of utterly demolishing Darwinist pretensions than Behe.

Yes, he made such an impression at the Dover trial. Why, I still can't work out how he unarguably refuted something like 57 papers on the evolution of the blood clotting mechanism and gave Darwinism it's Waterloo! :D

--------------Fundamentalism in a nutshell:"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

Very kind of you to say so but my debating skills and patience are insignificant compared to those I try to emulate: Zachriel. Secondclass, NWells, Quetzal, and Pixie, escherischia and aiguy at ARN spring immediately to mind but also those real scientists who have a life beyond blogging who pop in occasionally to brighten our world. I am sure others could add to a list. Mark Perakh, Robert Shapiro, Lizzie Liddell are some whose politeness under fire is worthy of note.

Sheesh. Behe just destroyed Levin. Behe is polite but in my opinion, nobody does a better job of utterly demolishing Darwinist pretensions than Behe.

Yes, he made such an impression at the Dover trial. Why, I still can't work out how he unarguably refuted something like 57 papers on the evolution of the blood clotting mechanism and gave Darwinism it's Waterloo! :D

Keep in mind Behe refuted 57 papers/books without having ever read them. Now THAT is amazing.

I also note, however, that the nastiest questions get replies, whereas some polite questions just dangle over there.

That's because the fundies aren't really out to communicate anything --- they're mostly out to feed their massive martyr complexes and brag about how repressed they are . . .

A cyber-friend of mine on the DebunkCreation list did an experiment once that illustrated the point. For several months, whenever he wrote a message to a creationsit, he would flip a coin --- heads, he was nice and polite, tailes, he altered his nice polite message by gratuitously adding some insults and swear words.

I also note, however, that the nastiest questions get replies, whereas some polite questions just dangle over there.

That's because the fundies aren't really out to communicate anything --- they're mostly out to feed their massive martyr complexes and brag about how repressed they are . . .

A cyber-friend of mine on the DebunkCreation list did an experiment once that illustrated the point. For several months, whenever he wrote a message to a creationsit, he would flip a coin --- heads, he was nice and polite, tailes, he altered his nice polite message by gratuitously adding some insults and swear words.

All this faux Postmodernist politeness as a practiced art form is to serve one purpose only.

Neutralize the opposition.

The content is completely irrelevant; it’s all about perception, in the most cynical way.

Here's how it works.

Cretin ..er I mean Creationist: "2 + 1 =4"

Potential convert: Are you sure? I think you'll find its 3.

C:2 + 1 =4 is scienteeficlly proven.

P: Now you’re being ridiculous

C: No I'm not; all our imbecilic cult bible school knows this and its true. We get tax deducted dollars so we must be honest...right? We're rich beyond the dreams of avarice, huge public support, we pull strings in Washington, invade countries that piss us off and 80% of the population agrees with us. Show some respect.

P: You’re all a bunch of cunts.

C: We're 'oh so nice' and you make yourself look ugly and demented when we drive you nuts with our breathless inanity

P: You’re all a bunch disingenuous lying smarmy cunts.

C: Help were being treated like Jews under Nazism.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Wanna be a fly on a wall? How about a bacterium on a fly on a wall? How about a mitchondrium in a bacterium on a fly on a wall?

You know what this reminds me of? Girl gossip in school - something I was never good at (because I was too busy reading Gould and Sagan and finding excuses for not going to dances like my mom wanted me to - oh, the irony). :)

The nastier it gets the more I lose heart. I'm watching somebody implode, and it ain't Ken Miller.

What I can't understand is why Dembski posted this. He sure as he11 doesn't actually believe this stuff about the Darwinian paradigm being overthrown etc etc because he's an intelligent person - so why post evidence on an intelligent design blog which blows everything Behe has said about the evolvability of irreducible complexity totally out of the water?

Behe wanted a mutation-by-mutation account of how something irreducibly complex evolved, and here it is. Is Dembski taking the piss out of his acolytes by trying to get them to ridicule something that is absolutely cast-iron proof that they're wrong? A kind of Blairite approach.

"Proofs" for evolution? Evolution just explains the evidence. The evidence doesn't prove the explanation.

Stuff like that just gets my chimp. Besides, Score-Dover is quoting Creation Safaris anyway, and we all know how reliable they are. Any reputable source for this charge?

well, if your reference book is "Icons" then Sladjo is in fact performing Science by ID standards.

And even if "Leakey Manipulated His Apelike “Skull 1470” to Look Human ." then how does this provide a single positive shred of evidence for ID? What does it in fact, have to do with ID anyway?Answer : It does not!

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

In short, in 1972 when Leakey found a skull that is between humans and apes, he reconstructed it by hand using the best knowledge available at the time. A new reconstruction using computers has changed the way the skull looks. "Wow. This must be the final confirmation of ID that we have been looking for!" you might say. Well, you would be wrong; the skull is still intermediary between apes and humans - and besides, we constantly hear that <b>ID is compatible with common descent</b> so why is this intermediary skull so troubling to ID proponents? And why do ID proponents seem to have such trouble with dating methods?

What else could the IDers be discussing today. Well, theres the usual discussion of eugneics, and also a claim that Giraffe's could not have evolved. ID research is really flourishing these days.

In short, in 1972 when Leakey found a skull that is between humans and apes, he reconstructed it by hand using the best knowledge available at the time.

It's important to baraminology to see the change. Now it can be considered to be "all ape" instead of "all human" (with rickets or something).

And baraminology fits in the big tent and even beyond. I mean, poor ol' Sternberg isn't a creationist or IDist, just a man interested in fairness, and he belonged to a baraminology group. We really do need to know which hominin fossils are all ape and which are all human.

In short, in 1972 when Leakey found a skull that is between humans and apes, he reconstructed it by hand using the best knowledge available at the time. A new reconstruction using computers has changed the way the skull looks. "Wow. This must be the final confirmation of ID that we have been looking for!" you might say. Well, you would be wrong; the skull is still intermediary between apes and humans - and besides, we constantly hear that <b>ID is compatible with common descent</b> so why is this intermediary skull so troubling to ID proponents? And why do ID proponents seem to have such trouble with dating methods?

What else could the IDers be discussing today. Well, theres the usual discussion of eugneics, and also a claim that Giraffe's could not have evolved. ID research is really flourishing these days.

This new "reconstruction" is a dentistry conference POSTER, and is not based on work with the actual fossil as far as I can tell.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

In short, in 1972 when Leakey found a skull that is between humans and apes, he reconstructed it by hand using the best knowledge available at the time. A new reconstruction using computers has changed the way the skull looks. "Wow. This must be the final confirmation of ID that we have been looking for!" you might say. Well, you would be wrong; the skull is still intermediary between apes and humans - and besides, we constantly hear that <b>ID is compatible with common descent</b> so why is this intermediary skull so troubling to ID proponents? And why do ID proponents seem to have such trouble with dating methods?

What else could the IDers be discussing today. Well, theres the usual discussion of eugneics, and also a claim that Giraffe's could not have evolved. ID research is really flourishing these days.

This new "reconstruction" is a dentistry conference POSTER, and is not based on work with the actual fossil as far as I can tell.

12:37 pmIt is perhaps an error to infer that eugenics is a necessary implication to Darwinism.

2

russ

03/29/2007

12:41 pmHere’s a link to critical reviews of the science text “Biology: The Dynamics of Life”. According to the original article, this is the textbook Helphinstine was required to use for his biology classes.

Jehu03/29/200712:55 pmWhat is wrong with the presentation? It is 100% historically accurate.

Apparently “jerry” doesn’t like it. I guess “jerry” is all in favor of repressing truth in order to protect his fragile world view.

If you are so intimidated by opposing view points that would fire a teacher for raising objections to evolution, I think your word view is pretty obvious. I could be wrong but does it really matter?

(My boldfacing)

No, Jehu, your opinion actually doesn't matter, since you ask...

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I believe in God and I am anti-Darwinism and I am also anti-YEC. At the moment I think Darwinism is the bigger threat but I believe YEC is equally dogmatic if not more so but not a threat to the morality of the country.

Ah. Glad to hear your 'scientific' views are driven by your fears as to what will 'threaten our morality', and not actual, you know, science.

Quote

But I oppose both and view YEC as an impediment to getting rid of Darwinism because its views on science are seen as ludicrous to most scientists and educators

So, whether YEC is actually, you know, TRUE isn't all that important either. You only oppose YEC because you're afraid of looking foolish. Gotcha.

I got news for you, Jerry: ID is seen as just as ludicrous to those very same scientists and educators.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Wow, the Tard has been flowing lately like diarrhea after a trip to TacoBell. O'Leary's torticollis seems to be causing diminished blood flow to part of her brain. Dembski is cutting and pasting like a juvenile chimpanzee given Elmer's glue and a safety scissors. DaveTard is bellowing like Jabba as the erotic dancer gets devoured by the Rancor.

Here's a hot pic of the smarmy bastard for all you jerkoffs to have fun with: